And this all men call God

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius']but for something to have exactly the same attributes/qualities it must be the same thing...therefore the same being. [/quote]

Then you would have to conclude that there is in fact only one water molecule in the whole of existence.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:12 PM']No need to be hesistant in posting in my name Paphy. I was posting in defence of your response since it seemed to me that not everyone was apprehending your meaning.
[/quote]
Thank you . You put it far more coherently than I could have though! (and in fewer words. Hooray for brevity)

[quote]But let's say that these two things were rocks. If you were to finds two exactly identical rocks (unlikely), would you consider them to be the same rock? Even when holding them both in your hand, would you say you were holding only one rock? To say that would make no sense at all. Two things can't be the same thing (even if identical), if they are separate.
[/quote] 1) They occupy different space and therefore have some differing quality or attribute. 2) Dealing with a finite thing is different than dealing with a self-caused being because of what is necessary to be self-caused.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:26 PM']Then you would have to conclude that there is in fact only one water molecule in the whole of existence.
[right][snapback]839259[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No...I would say there is only one water molecule that has exactly qualties or attributes X, Y, Z and the occupation of space A. Imagine if we were to put everything in the physical world on a grid, then the occupation of a specific tile on that grid could be considred and attribute or quality (I really need to decide on the word I want) and thus make water1 different from water2.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius']They occupy different space and therefore have some differing quality or attribute.[/quote]

1) Location is not a quality of the object.
2) God has no location, therefore gods can be identical even if location mattered.


[quote name='Myles']You cannot add to infinity [/quote]

Sure you can. You just did it yourself too. Infinity + 1 = infinity. That's adding to infinity! It doesn't get bigger in any meaningful sense, but there is always room to add some more to it.

[quote]premises of your argument make the error of treating infinity as if it were a number[/quote]

I didn't, but I think you did. By saying that two infinities are more than infinity.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:15 PM']Electrons are all identical
[right][snapback]839251[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I haven't read the thread yet, I actually just read this one statement above and was already compelled to post.

Electrons are not all identical. (in an atom at least) According to the Pauli exclusion principle no two electrons have the same quantum numbers. They are distinct in their energy, to say nothing of the simple fact that they can be distinguished in their temporal and spatial existence. Photons too are all distinct in their energy, etc.

Quantum numbers = electron address (principle, azimuthal or secondary, magnetic or angular, magnetic spin). No two electrons are identical in their quantum numbers, compare them to snow flakes if you must.

Just a random comment.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:11 PM']I haven't read the thread yet, I actually just read this one statement above and was already compelled to post.

Electrons are not all identical. (in an atom at least) According to the Pauli exclusion principle no two electrons have the same quantum numbers. They are distinct in their energy, to say nothing of the simple fact that they can be distinguished in their temporal and spatial existence. Photons too are all distinct in their energy, etc.

Quantum numbers = electron address (principle, azimuthal or secondary, magnetic or angular, magnetic spin). No two electrons are identical in their quantum numbers, compare them to snow flakes if you must.

Just a random comment.
[right][snapback]839312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
a little something to substantiate my claims:

[quote]The Pauli exclusion principle is a quantum mechanical principle formulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925, which states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. It is one of the most important principles in physics, primarily because the three types of particle from which ordinary matter is made—electrons, protons, and neutrons—are all subject to it. The Pauli exclusion principle underlies many of the characteristic properties of matter, from the large-scale stability of matter to the existence of the periodic table of the elements.

Particles obeying the Pauli exclusion principle are called fermions. Apart from the familiar electron, proton and neutron, these include the neutrinos, the quarks (from which protons and neutrons are made), as well as some atoms like helium-3. All fermions possess "half-integer spin", meaning that they possess an intrinsic angular momentum whose value is  (Planck's constant divided by 2π) times a half-integer (1/2, 3/2, 5/2, etc.). In the theory of quantum mechanics, fermions are described by "antisymmetric states", which are explained in greater detail in the article on identical particles.

Particles that are not fermions can only be bosons, which are particles described using "symmetric states" in quantum theory. Bosons are allowed to share quantum states, and possess integer spin. Examples of bosons include the photon and the W and Z bosons.
[/quote]

So basically two electrons with the same spin cannot have the same coordinates and atoms are anti-symmetric. blah blah blah
We know this is true because matter is stable and electrons don't just collapse into the K shell (the lowest energy state).

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Sure you can. You just did it yourself too. Infinity + 1 = infinity. That's adding to infinity! It doesn't get bigger in any meaningful sense, but there is always room to add some more to it.[/quote]

That was precisely my point. Whatever is added to infinity becomes infinity. There cannot be pluarality in two beings possesing all the predicates of that which all men call God e.g. By way of their infinity they become a single and same infinity.

INXC
Myles

Edited December 30, 2005 by Myles

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:36 PM']That was precisely my point. Whatever is added to infinity becomes infinity. There cannot be pluarality in two beings possesing all the predicates of that which all men call God.

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]839323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh, is that what this debate is about.. I'm so rude..

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 30 2005, 02:36 AM']oh, is that what this debate is about.. I'm so rude.. 
[right][snapback]839324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Well whose side are you on L_D?

INXC
Myles

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum']No two electrons are identical in their quantum numbers, compare them to snow flakes if you must[/quote]

If that is true, then fine. It doesn't really matter. God isn't made of quantums anyway. My main point is that there can be many beings that have the qualities required to be a god.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:38 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominum']No two electrons are identical in their quantum numbers, compare them to snow flakes if you must[/quote]

If that is true, then fine. It doesn't really matter. God isn't made of quantums anyway. My main point is that there can be many beings that have the qualities required to be a god.
[right][snapback]839326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
as far as I'm concerned you wouldn't be talking about god in the strict sense. God is not "a being", God is beyond being, and yet the presupposition of the possibility of being. That is worse than suggesting that we posit [i]being qua being1[/i], [i]being qua being2[/i], etc.. Some things are logically indivisible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I feel like arguing with myself (no I'm not crazy.. very crazy anyway).

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:11 PM']Photons too are all distinct in their energy, etc.
[right][snapback]839312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What are you talking about kid? Photons are massless, integer spin particles you amateur. Photons can have the same energy and be identical, this is why we must use Bose-Einstein distribution to statistically take into account this indistinguishability.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Myles']By way of their infinity they become a single and same infinity.[/quote]

But it's not the same infinity. Here's an analogy:
Infinity Q is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
Infinity W is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
These are both infinitely long sets of numbers. If you were to write either of them on paper, it would make a infinitely long text.

Infinity A includes both Q and W. If you were to write A on paper, it would include all the numbers from 1 to infinity twice, and it would be a infinitely long text.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Semalsia

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominus']God is not "a being"[/quote]

Well, as far as I can see, you have just stated that God doesn't exist.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:53 PM']I feel like arguing with myself (no I'm not crazy.. very crazy anyway).
What are you talking about kid? Photons are massless, integer spin particles you amateur. Photons can have the same energy and be identical, this is why we must use Bose-Einstein distribution to statistically take into account this indistinguishability.
[right][snapback]839333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you sound like a bafoon. don't quit your day job.
I wasn't talking about all that statistical mechanics fluff, I was more making a metaphysical statement. I mean, if "two" photons are truly indistinguishable then it doesn't make much sense to speak of two photons at all. As far as I know, any meaningful experimental situation in which you could speak of two photons, you can really speak of two distinct photons, otherwise its more an abstraction and we're just talking about two photons merging into one. Perhaps there is something paradoxical involved here.. Or maybe I should just quit talking out of my rear.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:01 PM'][quote name='Laudate_Dominus']God is not "a being"[/quote]

Well, as far as I can see, you have just stated that God doesn't exist.
[right][snapback]839344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
if existence is conceived of merely as contingent existence, or diastemic being, then yes, God does not exist in this sense. But reality is bigger than that. I'm not sure you how drew that conclusion considering that I indicated in my post the fact that God is the presupposition of the possibility of existence. And we can know of the necessesity of God's activity, even if we can't presume to penetrate His transcendent reality with categories of finite existence.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:37 PM']

Well whose side are you on L_D?

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]839325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
not sure yet, I've been too busy talking to myself to read the thread.. gosh, I'm a deadbeat.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 07:54 PM'][quote name='Myles']By way of their infinity they become a single and same infinity.[/quote]

But it's not the same infinity. Here's an analogy:
Infinity Q is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
Infinity W is made of numbers from 1 to infinity.
These are both infinitely long sets of numbers. If you were to write either of them on paper, it would make a infinitely long text.

Infinity A includes both Q and W. If you were to write A on paper, it would include all the numbers from 1 to infinity twice, and it would be a infinitely long text.
[right][snapback]839334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think this pulls in the orginal arguments presented in this thread...

Pap covered the first one... if infinity Q is 1 - infinity and infinity W is 1 - infinity, then there is no difference in them, they are the same thing, that is infinity. There is no difference between them :. they are the same.

You're second example is what Jeff argued. If Q and W were subsets of A then A becomes the "Form" which they are derived from and this again is a singular thing.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Dec 29 2005, 08:07 PM']1) Location is not a quality of the object.
2) God has no location, therefore gods can be identical even if location mattered.
[/quote]
1) Sure it is. An object occupies height X, width Y, and length Z of space that another object does not occupy. Location may be seen as a "quality" when we understand it as an object possesing space as one posses a color of hair.
2) My point was to refute your analogy not to apply it to God.

And LD, forgive me for referring to God as a being, but I think that in the context of this thread and the limits of language that was the only way I could get my point across. You do have a point, though. Hume presupposes that God is a being rather than Being.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 29 2005, 09:39 PM']And LD, forgive me for referring to God as a being, but I think that in the context of this thread and the limits of language that was the only way I could get my point across. You do have a point, though. Hume presupposes that God is a being rather than Being.
[right][snapback]839423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do the same thing when its convenient. no worries mate. and its valid when qualified.